Talk:MYH16 gene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Genetics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I think it's worth mentioning that the smallness of jaws and the largeness of brains may not be related. The theory as I have usually heard it focuses on the width of the birth canal and claims that an unusually large-brained baby would have always been likely to have a troublesome birth up until the mutation for small jaws set in. But baby chimpanzees do not have especially large jaws, and if the jaw is even the widest part of the fetal head, it is so by a small margin. That is to say, humans and chimps develop differently with respect to jaw structure only long after birth, and the mutation for developing small jaws in itself would seem to have offered little additional space available for larger brains.

Could it be instead that the mutation happened by chance in a small isolated population, and then that caused humans to have trouble eating, so they had to learn to use fire to make their meat easier to chew? Or maybe fire came first, and then large jaws became unnecessary.

Haplolology 17:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It is too early to form any definitive conclusions. Fortunately for us, Carroll has said as much in print, so we don't have to commit original research to say so in the article. Kingdon (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Not sure on the format for including Chromosome position, but... gives the locus as 7q22.1 Alexlaw65 (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want a more informed opinion, I'd ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Genetics, but at least for now I've put that link in as an external link. Some wikipedia articles have a lot of that sort of data in the article itself (perhaps in a big WP:Infobox like at PAX9), but I guess my view is that wikipedia writes articles, not databases, and that we should pick the most widely useful pieces of data and link to the rest externally (I surely do not know enough about genetics to say which is which for an article like this). Kingdon (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)